Burnet on Article XXI: Of the Authority of General Councils

THERE are two Particulars setled in this Article: The one is, The power of calling of Councils, at least an Assertion that they cannot be called without the Will of Princes: The other is, The Authority of general Councils, that they are not Infallible, and that some have erred: And therefore the Inference is justly made, That whatever Authority they may have in the Rule and Government of the Church, their Decisions in matters necessary to Salvation ought to be examined by the Word of God, and are not to be submitted to, unless it appears that they are conform to the Scripture.

The first of these is thus proved: Clergymen are Subject to their Princes, according to these words,¹ Let every soul be subject to the higher powers: If they are then Subject to them, they cannot be obliged to go out of their Dominions upon the Summons of any other; their Persons being under the Laws and Authority of that Country to which they belong.

This is plain, and seems to need no other Proof. It is very visible how much the Peace of Kingdoms and States is concerned in this Point: For if a Foreign Power should call their Clergy away at pleasure, they might be not only left in a great destitution as to Religious Performances, but their Clergy might be practised upon, and sent back to them with such Notions, and upon such Designs, that, chiefly supposing the Immunity of their Persons, they might become, as they often were in dark and ignorant Ages, the Incendiaries of the World, and the Disturbers and Betrayers of their Countries. This is confirmed by the Practice of the first Ages, after the Church had the Protection of Christian Magistrates: In these the Roman Emperors called the First General Councils, which is expresly mentioned not only in the Histories of the Councils, but in their Acts, where we find both the Writs that Summoned them, and their Letters sometimes to the Emperors, and sometimes to the Churches, which do all set forth their being Summoned by the Sacred Authority of their Emperors, without mentioning any other. In calling some of these Councils, it does not appear that the Popes were much consulted: And in others we find Popes indeed supplicating the Emperors to call a Council, but nothing that has so much as a shadow of their pretending to an Authority to summon it themselves.

This is a thing so plain, and may be so soon seen into by any Person who will be at the pains to turn to the Editions of the first Four General Councils made by themselves, not to mention those that followed in the Greek Church, that the Confidence with which it has been asserted, That they were summoned by the Popes, is an Instance to shew us that there is nothing at which men who are once engaged, will stick when their Cause requires it. But even since the Popes have got this matter into their own hands, though they summon the Council, yet they do not pretend to it, nor expect that the World would receive a Council as General, or submit to it, unless the Princes of Christendom should allow of it, and consent to the Publication of the Bull. So that by reason of this, Councils are now become almost unpracticable things.

When all Christendom was included within the Roman Empire, then the calling of a Council lay in the Breast and Power of one Man; and during the Ages of Ignorance and Superstition, the World was so subjected to the Popes Authority, that Princes durst seldom oppose their Summons, or deny their Bishops leave to go when they were so called: But after the scandalous Schism in the Popedom, in which there were for a great while Two Popes, and at last Three at a time, Councils began to pretend that the Power of Governing the Church, and of censuring, depriving, and making of Popes, was radically in them, as Representing the Vniversal Church: So they fell upon Methods to have frequent Councils, and that whether both Popes and Princes should oppose it or not; for they declared both the one and the other to be fallen from their Dignity, that should attempt to hinder it. Yet they carried the Claim of the Freedom of Elections, and of the other Ecclesiastical Immunities so high, that all that followed upon this, was, That the Popes being terrified with the Attempts begun at Constance, and prosecuted at Basil and Pisa, took pains to have Princes of their side, and then made Bargains and Concordates with them, by which they divided all the Rights of the Church, at least the Pretensions to them, between themselves and the Princes. Matters of Gain and Advantage were reserved to the See of Rome; but the Points of Power and Jurisdiction were generally given up to the Princes. The Temporal Authority has by that means prevailed over the Spiritual, as much as the Spiritual Authority had prevailed over the Temporal for several Ages before. Yet the Pretence of a General Council is still so specious, that all those in the Roman Communion that do not acknowledge the Infallibility of their Popes, do still support this Pretension, That the Infallibility is given by Christ to his Church; and that in the Interval of Councils it is in the Community of the Bishops and Pastors of the Church; and that when a Council meets, then the Infallibility is lodged with it;² according to that, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to Vs.

The first thing to be settled in every Question, is the meaning of the Terms: So we must begin and examine what makes a General Council; Whether all the Bishops must be present in Person, or by Proxy? And what share the Laity, or the Princes that are thought to represent their People, ought to have in a Council? It is next to be considered, Whether a General Citation is enough to make a Council General, were the appearance of the Bishops ever so small at their first opening? It is next to be considered, Whether any come thither and Sit there as representing others; and if Votes ought to be reckoned according to the Numbers of the Bishops, or of the others who Depute and send them? And whether Nations ought to Vote in a Body as Integral Parts of the Church; or of every single Bishop by himself? And finally, Whether the Decisions of Councils must be Unanimous, before they can be esteemed Infallible? Or whether the Major Vote, though exceeding only by One, or if some greater Inequality is necessary; such as Two Thirds, or any other Proportion? That there may be just cause of raising Scruples upon every one of these, is apparent at first View. It is certain, a bare Name cannot qualify a Number of Bishops Sitting together, to be this General Council. The Numbers of Bishops does it not neither. A Hundred and fifty was a small Number at Constantinople: Even the famous Three hundred and eighteen at Nice were far exceeded by those at Arimini. All the First General Councils were made up for the most part of Eastern Bishops; there being a very inconsiderable Number of the Western among any of them; scarce any at all being to be found in some. If this had been the Body to whom Christ had left this Infallibility, it cannot be imagined but that some Definition or Description of the Constitution of it, would have been given us in the Scripture: And the profound silence that is about it, gives just occasion to think, that how Wise and how Good soever such a Constitution may be, if well pursued, yet it is not of a Divine Institution; otherwise somewhat concerning so Important a Head as this is, must have been mentioned in the Scripture.

The Natural Idea of a General Council, is a Meeting of all the Bishops of Christendom, or at least of Proxies Instructed by them and their Clergy. Now if any will stand to this Description, then we are very sure that there was never yet a True General Council: Which will appear to every one that reads the Subscriptions of the Councils. Therefore we must conclude, That General Councils are not Constituted by a Divine Authority; since we have no Direction given us from God, by which we may know what they are, and what is necessary to their Constitution. And we cannot suppose that God has granted any Privileges, much less Infallibility, which is the greatest of all, to a Body of Men, of whom, or of whose Constitution he has said nothing to us. For suppose we should yield that there were an Infallibility lodged in general in the Church diffusive, so that the Church in some Part or other shall be always preserved from Error; yet the restraining this to the greater Number of such Bishops as shall happen to come to a Council, they living perhaps near it, or being more capable and more forward to undertake a Journey, being Healthier, Richer, or more Active than others; or which is as probable, because it has often fallen out, they being picked out by Parties or Princes to carry on Cabals, and manage such Intrigues as may be on Foot at the Council: The restraining the Infallibility, I say, to the greater Number of such Persons, unless there is Divine Authority for doing it, is the Transferring the Infallibility from the whole Body to a select Number of Persons, who of themselves are the least likely to Consent to the engrossing this Privilege to the Majority of their Body, it being their Interest to maintain their Right to it, free from Intrigue or Management.

We need not wonder if such things have happen’d in the latter Ages, when Nazianzen laments the Corruptions, the Ambition, and the Contentions that reigned in those Assemblies in his own time; so that he never desired to see any more of them. He was not only present at one of the General Councils, but he himself felt the Effects of Jealousie and Violence in it.

Further, it will appear a thing incredible, That there is an Infallibility in Councils because they are called General, and are Assembled out of a great many Kingdoms and Provinces; when we see them go backward and forward, according to the Influences of Courts, and of Interests directed from thence. We know how differently Councils Decreed in the Arian Controversies; and what a variety of them Constantius set up against that at Nice. So it was in the Eutychian Heresy, Approved in the Second Council at Ephesus, but soon after Condemned at Chalcedon. So it was in the business of Images, Condemned at Constantinople in the East; but soon after upon anoth[?] Change at Court maintain’d in the Second at Nice; and not long after Condemned in a very Numerous Council at Francfort. And in the Point in Hand, as to the Authority of Councils, it was Asserted at Constance and Basil; but Condemned in the Lateran; and was upon the matter laid aside at Trent. Here were great Numbers of all Hands; both Sides took the Name of General Councils.

It will be a further Prejudice against this, if we see great Violences and Disorders entring into the Management of some Councils; and Craft and Ar[?]i[?]ice into the Conduct of others. Numbers of Factious and Furious Monks came to some Councils, and drove on Matters by their Clamours: So it was at Ephesus. We see gross Fraud in the Second at Nice, both in the Persons set up to represent the Absent Patriarchs; and in the Books and Authorities that were Vouched for the Worship of Images. The Intrigues at Trent, as they are set out even by Cardinal Pallavicini, were more subtile, but not less apparent, nor less scandalous. Nothing was trusted to a Session, till it was first Canvassed in Congregations; which were what a Committee of the whole House is in our Parliaments; and then every Man’s Vote was known; so that there was hereby great occasion given for Practice. This alone, if there had been no more, shewed plainly that they themselves knew they were not Guided by the Spirit of God, or by Infallibility; since a Session was not thought safe to be ventured on, but after a long previous Canvassing.

Another Question remains yet to be cleared, concerning their Manner of Proceeding; Whether the Infallibility is affixed to their Vote, whatsoever their Proceedings may be? Or whether they are bound to Discuss Matters fully? The first cannot be said, unless it is pretended that they Vote by Special Inspiration: If the second is allowed, then we must examine both what makes a full Discussion; and whether they have made it?

If we find Opinions safely represented, if Books that are spurious have been relied on; if Passages of Scripture, or of the Fathers on which it appears the stress of the Decision has turned, have been manifestly misunderstood and wrested, so that in a more Enlightened Age no Person pretends to justify the Authorities that determined them; Can we imagine that there should be more Truth in their Conclusions, than we do plainly see was in the Premisses out of which they were drawn? So it must either be said, That they Vote by an immediate Inspiration, or all Persons cannot be bound to submit to their Judgment till they have examined their Methods of Proceeding, and the Grounds on which they went: And when all is done, the Question comes, concerning the Authority of such Decrees after they are made, Whether it follows immediately upon their being made, or must stay for the Confirmatory Bulls? If it must stay for the Bull, then the Infallibility is not in the Council: And that is only a more solemn way of preparing Matters in order to the laying them before the Pope. If they are Infallible before the Confirmation, then the Infallibility is wholly in the Council; and the subsequent Bull does instead of confirming their Decrees, derogate much from them: For to pretend to confirm them, imports that they wanted that Addition of Authority, which destroys the supposition of their Infallibility, since what is Infallible cannot be made Stronger: And the pretending to add strength to it, implies that it is not Infallible. Human Constitutions may be indeed so modelled, that there must be a joint Concurrence, before a Law can be made: And though it is the last consent that settles the Law, yet the previous consents were necessary steps to the giving it the Authority of a Law.

And thus it is not to be denied, but that as to the Matters of Government, the Church may cast her self into such a Model, that as by a Decree of the Council of Nice, the Bishops of a Province might conclude nothing without the consent of the Metropolitan; so another Decree might even limit a General Council to stay for the consent of one or more Patriarchs. But this must only take place in Matters of Order and Government, which are left to the disposal of the Church, but not in Decisions about Matters of Faith. For if there is an Infallibility in the Church, it must be derived from a special Grant made by Christ to his Church: And it must go according to the Nature of that Grant, unless it can be pretended that there is a Clause in that Grant empowering the Church to dispose of it, and model it at pleasure. For if there is no such power, as it is plain there is not, then Christ’s Grant is either to a single person, or to the whole Community: If to a single Person, then the Infallibility is wholly in him, and he is to manage it as he thinks best: For if he calls a Council, it is only an act of his humility and condescension, to hear the Opinions of many in different Corners of the Church, that so he may know all that comes from all Quarters: It may also seem a prudent way to make his Authority to be the more easily born and submitted to, since what is gently managed, is best obeyed: But after all, these are only prudential and discreet Methods. The Infallibility must be only in him, if Christ has by the Grant tied him to such a Succession. Whereas on the other hand, if the Infallibility is granted to the whole Community, or to their Representatives, then all the Applications that they may make to any one See, must only be in order to the Execution of their Decrees, like the Addresses that they make to Princes for the Civil Sanction. But still the Infallibility is where Christ put it. It rests wholly in their Decision, and belongs only to that: And any other Confirmation that they desire, unless it be restrained singly to the Execution of their Decrees, is a Wound given by themselves to their own Infallibility, if not a direct disclaiming of it.

When the Confirmation of the Council is over, a new Difficulty arises concerning the receiving the Decrees: And here it may be said, That if Christ’s Grant is to the whole Community, so that a Council is only the Authentical Declarer of the Tradition, the whole Body of the Church that is possessed of the Tradition, and conveys it down, must have a right to examine the Decision that the Council has made, and so is not bound to receive it, but as it finds it to be conformable to Tradition.

Here it is to be supposed, that every Bishop, or at the least all the Bishops of any National Church, know best the Tradition of their own Church and Nation: And so they will have a right to re-examine things, after they have been judged in a General Council.

This will intirely destroy the whole Pretension to Infallibility: And yet either this ought to have been done, after the Councils at Arimini, or the second of Ephesus, or else the World must have received Semi-Arianism, or Eutychianism, implicitly from them. It is also no small prejudice against this Opinion, That the Church was constituted, the Scriptures were received, many Heresies were rejected, and the Persecutions were gone through in a course of Three Centuries; in all which time there was nothing that could pretend to be called a General Council. And when the Ages came in which Councils met often, neither the Councils themselves, who must be supposed to understand their own Authority best, nor those who writ in defence of their Decrees, who must be supposed to be inclined enough to magnify their Authority, being of the same side; neither of these, I say, ever pretended to argue for their Opinions, from the Infallibility of those Councils that Decreed them.

They do indeed speak of them with great Respect, as of Bodies of Men that were guided by the Spirit of God: And so do we of our Reformers, and of those who prepared our Liturgy: But we do not ascribe Infallibility to them, and no more did they. Nor did they lay the stress of their Arguments upon the Authority of such Decisions; they knew that the Objection might have been made as strong against them, as they could put the Argument for them. And therefore they offered to wave the Point, and to appeal to the Scripture, setting aside the Definitions that had been made in Councils both ways.

To conclude this Argument.

If the Infallibility is supposed to be in Councils, then the Church may justly apprehend that she has lost it: For as there has been no Council that has pretended to that Title, now during 130 Years, so there is no great probability of our ever seeing another. The Charge and Noise, the Expectations and Disappointments of that at Trent, has Taught the World to expect nothing from one: They plainly see that the management from Rome must carry every thing in a Council: Neither Princes nor People, no nor the Bishops themselves, desire or expect to see one.

The Claim set up at Rome for Infallibility, makes the demand of one seem not only needless there, but to imply a doubting of their Authority, when other methods are lookt after, which will certainly be always unacceptable to those who are in possession, and act as if they were Infallible: Nor can it be apprehended that they will desire a Council to Reform those abuses in Discipline, which are all occasioned by that Absolute and Universal Authority, of which they are now possessed.

So by all the Judgments that can be made from the State of Things, from the Interests of Men, and the last Managemnt at Trent, one may without a Spirit of Prophecy conclude, That Christendom puts on a new Face, there will be no more General Councils. And so here Infallibility is at an end, and has left the Church at least for a very long Interval.

It remains that those Passages should be considered that are brought to support this Authority. Christ says, Tell the Church; and if he neglects to hear the Church, let him be to thee as a Heathen, ³ and a Publican.

These words in themselves, and separated from all that went before, seem to speak out this matter very fully: But when the occasion of them, and the matter that is treated of in them, are considered, nothing can be plainer than that our Saviour is speaking of such private Differences, as may arise among Men, and of the Practice of forgiving Injuries, and composing their Differences. If thy Brother sin against thee; first private Endeavours were to be used, then the Interposition of Friends was to be tried: And finally, the matter was to be referred to the Body, or Assembly to which they belonged: And those who could not be gained by such Methods, were no more to be esteemed Brethren, but were to be looked on as very bad Men, like Heathens. They might upon such refractoriness be Excommunicated, and Prosecuted afterwards in Temporal Courts, since they had by their Perversness forfeited all sort of right to that Tenderness and Charity that is due to true Christians.

This Exposition does so fully agree to the Occasion and Scope of these words, that there is no colour of Reason to carry them further.

The Character given to the Church of Ephesus; in St. Paul’s Epistle to Timothy, ⁴ That it was the pillar and ground of Truth, is a Figurative Expression: And it is never safe to build upon Metaphors, much less to lay much weight upon them.

The Iews described their Synagogues by such honourable Characters, in which it is known how profuse all the Eastern Nations are: These are by St. Paul applied to the Church of Ephesus: For he there speaks of the Church where Timothy was then, in which he instructs him to behave himself well. It has visibly a relation to those Inscriptions that were made on Pillars, which rested upon firm Pedestals: But whatsoever the strict Importance of the Metaphor may be, it is a Metaphor, and therefore it can be no Argument. Christ’s promise of the Spirit to his Apostles,⁵ that should lead them into all truth, relates visibly to that extraordinary Inspiration, by which they were to be acted, and that was to shew them things to come; so that a Succession of Prophecy may be inferred from these words, as well as of Infallibility.

Those words of our Saviour, with which St. Matthew concludes his Gospel,⁶ Lo I am with you always, even to the end of the World, infer no Infallibility, but only a promise of Assistance and Protection: Which was a necessary encouragement to the Apostles, when they were sent upon so laborious a Commission, that was to involve them into so much danger. God’s being with any, his walking with them, his being in the midst of them, his never leaving nor forsaking them, are Expressions often used in the Scripture,⁷ which signifie no more but God’s watchful Providence, Guiding, Supporting, and Protecting his People: All this is far from Infallibility.

The Last Objection to be proposed, is that which seems to relate most to the Point in hand, taken from the Decree made by a Council at Ierusalem, ⁸ which begins, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us: From which they infer, That the Holy Ghost is present with Councils, and that what seems good to them is also approved by the Holy Ghost. But it will not be easie to prove that this was such a Council, as to be a pattern to succeeding ones to copy after it. We find Brethren are here joined with the Apostles themselves: Now since these were no other than the Laity, here an Inference will be made, that will not go easily down. If they fate and voted with the Apostles, it will seem strange to deny them the same privilege among Bishops. By Elders here it seems Presbyters are meant, and this will give them an Entrance into a General Council, out of which they cannot be well excluded, if the Laity are admitted. But here was no citation, no time given to all Churches to send their Bishops or Proxies: It was an Occasional Meeting of such of the Apostles as happened to be then at Ierusalem, who called to them the Elders or Presbyters, and other Christians at Ierusalem: For the Holy Ghost was then poured out so plentifully on so many, that no wonder if there was then about that truly Mother Church, a great many of both sorts, who were of such Eminence, that the Apostles might desire them to meet and to joyn with them.

The Apostles were Divinely Assisted in the delivering that Commission which our Saviour gave them in charge, To preach to every creature; and so were Infallibly Assisted in the Executing of it;⁹ yet when other Matters fell in, which were no Parts of that Commission, they no doubt did as St. Paul, who sometimes writ by Permission, ¹⁰ as well as at other times by Commandment: Of which he gives notice, by saying, It is I, and not the Lord: He suggested Advices, which to him, according to his Prudence and Experience seemed to be well founded; and he offered them with great Sincerity; for though he had some reason to think that what he proposed, flowed from the Spirit of the Lord, ¹¹ from that Inspiration that was Acting him; yet because that did not appear distinctly to him, he speaks with Reserves, and says,¹² he gives his judgment as one that had obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. So the Apostles here, receiving no Inspiration to Direct them in this Case, but observing well what St. Peter put them in mind of, concerning God’s sending him by a Special Vision to Preach to the Gentiles, and that God had poured out the Holy Ghost on them, even as he had done upon the Apostles, who were Iews by Nature, and that he did put no difference in that between Iews and Gentiles; ¹³ purifying the hearts of the Gentiles by Faith: They upon this did by their Judgment conclude from thence, That what God had done in the particular Instance of Cornelius, was now to be extended to all the Gentiles. So by this we see that those Words, seemed good to the Holy Ghost, relate to the Case of Cornelius; and those Words, seemed good to us, import that they resolved to extend that to be a general Rule to all the Gentiles.

This gives the Words a clear and a distinct Sense, which agrees with all that had gone before; whereas it will otherwise look very strange to see them add their Authority to that of the Holy Ghost; which is too Absurd to suppose: Nor will it be easy to give any other consisting Sense to these Words,

Here is no Precedent of a Council, much less of a General one; but a Decision is made by Men that were in other things Divinely Inspired, which can have no relation to the Judgment of other Councils. And thus it appears that none of those Places which are brought to prove the Infallibility of Councils, come up to the Point: For so great and so important a Matter as this is, must be supposed to be either expresly declared in the Scriptures, or not at all.

The Article affirming, That some General Councils have erred, must be understood of Councils that pass for such; and that may be called General Councils, much better than many others that go by that Name: For that at Arimini was both very Numerous, and was drawn out of many different Provinces. As to the strict Notion of a General Council, there is great Reason to believe that there was never any Assembly to which it will be found to agree. And for the Four General Councils, which this Church declares she receives, they are received only because we are persuaded from the Scriptures that their Decisions were made according to them: That the Son is truly God, of the same Substance with the Father. That the Holy Ghost is also truly God. That the Divine Nature was truly united to the Human in Christ; and that in One Person. That both Natures remain distinct; and that the Human Nature was not swallowed up of the Divine. These Truths we find in the Scriptures, and therefore we believe them. We reverence those Councils for the sake of their Doctrine; but do not believe the Doctrine for the Authority of the Councils. There appeared too much of Human Frailty in some of their other Proceedings, to give us such an Implicite Submission to them, as to believe things only because they so Decided them.

Footnotes

1. Rom. 13.1. ↩

2. Acts 15.28. ↩

3. Mat. 18.17. ↩

4. 1 Tim. 3. ↩

5. J[?]h. 16.13. ↩

6. Matth. 28.20. ↩

7. 2 Cor. 6.16. Heb. 13.5. ↩

8. Act 15.28. ↩

9. Mark 16.15. ↩

10. 1 Cor. 7.6 12. ↩

11. —ver. 40. ↩

12. —ver. 25. ↩

13. Acts 15.9. ↩